Rod Ellis

Last updated
Rod Ellis
Known for
Awards
  • 1985: Best book prize [2] (British Association of Applied Linguists)
  • 1988: Modern Language Association of America prize [2]
  • 1995: Duke of Edinburgh best book prize [2]
  • 2013: Appointed Distinguished Profess in the University of Auckland
  • 2014: Appointed fellow of Royal Society of New Zealand
Academic background
Alma mater

Through his research, Ellis has worked to provide comprehensive guidance for language teachers. Ellis maintains that despite the theoretical contributions made by Stephen Krashen, Robert DeKeyser, Michael Long and Bill VanPatten to the field of second language acquisition, there is no agreement on form-focused instruction or corrective feedback. In 2004, he compiled a set of 10 principles of instructed language learning that have been considered and challenged by other SLA scholars. [14]

These principles include:

  1. instruction must enlarge the student's use of formulaic expressions while maintaining a focus on rule-based competence.
  2. instruction must ensure meaning-focused input and output.
  3. instruction must ensure that students also focus on form.
  4. instruction must aim to create a balance between implicit and explicit knowledge of the language.
  5. Instruction must account for the student's built-in syllabus (noting the Natural approach to learning developed by Stephen Krashen).
  6. Instruction must include extensive L2 input.
  7. Instruction must include opportunities for output.
  8. Interaction with the language is the basis of proficiency-building.
  9. Instruction must consider the individual differences of learners.
  10. Assessment should include both free and controlled production. [14]

The basis for this list is grounded in various theoretical perspectives, though namely the computational model of L2 learning developed by James Lantolf. [15] This model has its limitations according to Ellis, as it does not account for social relations and contexts. However, it provides an appropriate basis for establishing a set of principles for language instruction.

Form-Focused Instruction versus Meaning-Focused Instruction

Ellis maintains that the distinction between form-focused instruction and meaning-focused instruction lies in how language is perceived and the role of the student. [16] The former is concerned with drawing the student's attention to linguistic form (including, but not restricted to, vocabulary and grammar) whereas the latter focuses on conveying messages. [17]

In taking note of the reconceptualization of focus-on-form by other scholars, notably Michael Long, Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams, Ellis distinguishes between planned and incidental focus on form. [17] According to Ellis, there are three types of form-focused instruction:

  1. Focus on forms: can be implicit or explicit, can include structured input or production practice and it can include functional language practice.
  2. Planned focus on form: can include enriched input or a focused communicative task.
  3. Incidental focus on form: can be pre-emptive [18] or reactive; can include implicit negative feedback or explicit negative feedback.

The effectiveness of form-focused instruction depends on multiple variables, such as the linguistic items being taught, the learners' developmental stage, the instructional context and instructional materials. [17] Ellis also maintains that form focused instruction not only facilitates language learning, but also that it does not change the sequence of language development.

Corrective Feedback

In a 2006 study, Ellis found that groups of students who had been given explicit instructions and grammar rules prior to taking multiple tests at different times initially had different outcomes based on what was being assessed, but by the final test, there was little to no difference between the groups of students. [19] In the same study, Ellis argues that students may already possess certain knowledge of a language's grammar, but when shown how to use this internal knowledge correctly, the acquisition of the language can dramatically increase. [19]

Ellis argues in favour of explicit feedback rather than implicit feedback, such as recasts. [19] Accordingly, with the latter, there is positive evidence, though it is not clear whether it provides negative evidence. Ellis supports consciousness-raising as a method for self-correction. [19] Ellis suggests that explicit corrective feedback can be useful in the syntactic and other grammatical understandings in the target language by asserting and demonstrating the type of mistake produced in an utterance. [19] [20] Ellis states that by giving students explicit corrective feedback on mistakes, there is the possibility of students internalizing this new grammatical knowledge being learned for future usage. [19] One reason, as mentioned previously, is that after given the explicit feedback, it allows students to witness the grammatical mistakes being made and self-correct the mistake, allowing for the learner to acquire grammatical knowledge of the language. [19]

Criticism

As a leading theorist in task-based learning (TBL), Ellis has defended TBL from an assertion by Henry Widdowson that the definition of a task is too loose and tends to blur with the concept of an activity. [21] Ellis refutes this claim by explaining that he clearly distinguishes a task from an activity in his works. One of the main ways in which Ellis distinguishes a task from an activity is by arguing the usefulness of each in regard to communication fluency for a task and correct form usage for an activity. [20] Ellis has also contested Paul Seedhouse who argued that such a method could result in pidginized language, [22] to which Ellis claims that it depends on the nature of the task. [23] This method of teaching (TBLT) has been considered by William Littlewood as too difficult for beginner students. [24] The view that Littlewood has against Ellis's TBLT method is that the required knowledge of the target language must already be at a fairly proficient level in order to complete the tasks being carried out. [20] Ellis explains that this is true on the basis that it is a production task; other gap-fill activities can be used by beginners. [23]

Ellis further explains that TBLT can be as effective as other methods of teaching a second language whereby the learner may reflect upon their first language as a guide when completing tasks to strengthen comprehension levels in their second language. [20] Michael Swan, protests Ellis in this regard by claiming that TBL is not any more effective than other language teaching methods, since TBL is lacking the structure needed to explicitly teach grammar to learners. Swan claims, that due to this lack of a systemic or clear breakdown for structure, that Ellis' TBL is more theoretical in nature due to lack of evidence in effect toward language acquisition in students. [20] [25] Another scholar, David Block, praises Ellis' task-based method as being inventive, however, similarly to Swan, Block defines Ellis' approach to language teaching heavily theoretical, with Ellis not mentioning how long a TBLT course should be or the maximum number of students it can support in a single class. [26]

Awards

Selected publications

Books

Articles

Notes

  1. ↑ "Rod Ellis, Ph.D."
  2. 1 2 3 "Public Staff Profile".
  3. ↑ Bracey, David. "Rod Ellis, Ph.D." anaheim.edu. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
  4. ↑ https://congresoidiomas.uta.edu.ec/rodellis.html [ bare URL ]
  5. 1 2 "Faculty of Arts - the University of Auckland".
  6. ↑ "SISU | Rod Ellis: Explicit Instruction and Language Learning". en.shisu.edu.cn. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
  7. 1 2 3 4 "Professor Rod Ellis". The University of Auckland, New Zealand, Faculty of Arts. Archived from the original on July 24, 2011. Retrieved March 9, 2011.
  8. ↑ "Rod Ellis | KoreaTESOL".
  9. 1 2 "Rod Ellis". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
  10. ↑ Ellis, Rod; Gaies, Stephen (1999). Impact grammar : Grammar through listening. Longman. ISBN   978-962-00-1428-4.
  11. ↑ Ellis, Rod (September 2006). "The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching". Asian EFL Journal. 8 (3). Archived from the original on 2008-03-30.
  12. ↑ Ellis, Rod (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. pp. 23, 24.
  13. 1 2 Ellis, Rod (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching /. Oxford, U.K. hdl:2027/mdp.39015057612957.
  14. 1 2 3 Ellis, Rod (2005-06-01). "Principles of instructed language learning" . System. 33 (2): 209–224. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006. ISSN   0346-251X. S2CID   62067740.
  15. ↑ Lantolf, James P. (1996). "SLA Theory Building: "Letting All the Flowers Bloom!"" . Language Learning. 46 (4): 713–749. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01357.x. ISSN   1467-9922.
  16. ↑ Ellis, Rod; Ellis, Professor Rod; Ellis (taalkunde), Rod R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-437189-6.
  17. 1 2 3 Ellis, Rod (2001). "Introduction: Investigating Form-Focused Instruction" . Language Learning. 51 (s1): 1–46. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x. ISSN   1467-9922.
  18. ↑ Ellis, Rod; Basturkmen, Helen; Loewen, Shawn (2001). "Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom" . TESOL Quarterly. 35 (3): 407–432. doi:10.2307/3588029. ISSN   1545-7249. JSTOR   3588029.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ellis, Rod; Loewen, Shawn; Erlam, Rosemary (2006). "Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28 (2): 339–368. doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060141 . ISSN   0272-2631. JSTOR   44487071.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 Ellis, Rod (2018-08-21), Walker, Izumi; Chan, Daniel Kwang Guan; Nagami, Masanori; Bourguignon, Claire (eds.), "2. Taking the critics to task: The case for task-based teaching" , New Perspectives on the Development of Communicative and Related Competence in Foreign Language Education, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 23–40, doi:10.1515/9781501505034-002, ISBN   978-1-5015-0503-4, S2CID   53678614 , retrieved 2020-12-04
  21. ↑ Widdowson, Henry G. (January 2000). "Object Language and the Language Subject: On the Mediating Role of Applied Linguistics" . Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 20: 21–33. doi:10.1017/S0267190500200020. ISSN   0267-1905. S2CID   143402873.
  22. ↑ Seedhouse, Paul (July 1999). "Task-based interaction" . ELT Journal. 53 (3): 149–156. doi:10.1093/elt/53.3.149. ISSN   1477-4526.
  23. 1 2 Walker, Izumi; Chan, Daniel Kwang Guan; Nagami, Masanori; Bourguignon, Claire (2018-08-21). New Perspectives on the Development of Communicative and Related Competence in Foreign Language Education. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN   978-1-5015-0503-4.
  24. ↑ Littlewood, William (July 2007). "Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms" . Language Teaching. 40 (3): 243–249. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004363. ISSN   0261-4448. S2CID   145185255.
  25. ↑ Swan, Michael (2005-09-01). "Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction" . Applied Linguistics. 26 (3): 376–401. doi:10.1093/applin/ami013. ISSN   1477-450X.
  26. ↑ Block, David (June 2004). "Review of Rod Ellis's Task-based Language Learning and Teaching" . The Language Learning Journal. 29 (1): 18–22. doi:10.1080/09571730485200051. ISSN   0957-1736. S2CID   144243862.
  27. 1 2 "Career retrospective: Rod Ellis - The University of Auckland". www.arts.auckland.ac.nz. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  28. 1 2 "Kenneth W. Mildenberger Prize Winners". Modern Language Association. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  29. 1 2 "2013 New Fellows". Royal Society Te Apārangi. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.